St. Simon the Stylite for example, of whom you said "is not amongst our fathers", is officially commemorated in the Coptic Synaxarium, the Armenian Calendar, and as our friend surajiype informs us, is remembered in the diptychs of the Syrian and Indian Orthodox Churches:

You are right about Simon the Stylite being commemorated in the Coptic Synaxarium, thanks for the correction. You are misled on the reason why he is among the saints. He, together with St. Isaac the Syrian, are not commemorated despite their adherence to any heretical synod or dogma, for such can never and was never the truth. The historical Isaac the Syrian and Simon the Stylite are portrayed in a different light in our church's tradition, which I trust the most.

Isaac the Syrian is believed to have moved to Egypt to Niteria's mountain and desert and has lived a life of communion with the Coptic monastic orders there and has come in touch with many of the leading figures of the Coptic monasticism. As such, his writings and spiritual meditations have been made known to the Coptic Church. How much credibility such story of the man gains or how much recognition it commands is not our dispute here, we can discuss it at some other time for the sake of historical verification and validation. WHat is the primary concern in this topic is the basis for veneration in the Church, which cannot include heretics among them.isaac the Syrian is not considered a Nestorian in our Church and as such his veneration based on such spotless legacy cannot be used by proponents of the ecumenical movement to support their agenda.

Neither can they use the example of Simon the Stylite (reposed around 457 a.d.). The same applies to him, for if your read his story in the Coptic Synaxarium there is no mention of his adherence to Chalcedon at any point of his time. He probably was not involved in the dispute and if anything, he would have been an opponent to this council. This is further supported by the fact that the Syrian monks, in all their orders, have rejected Chalcedon to the degree that alarmed the Father of Roman Supremacy, Leo of Rome. The staunch opponent of Chalcedon in Syria was a personal friend of Simon, St. Barsoma The Great whose commemoration is TODAY, Amshir 9th, in the Coptic calendar. St. Barsoma the Syrian was the leader of all monks in Syria.I doubt that St. Barsoma, who opposed and cut anybody from the monastic orders who believed in th heretical teachings of Leo and Chalcedon, would befriend a Chalcedonian. The only account of such story comes from no other than Theodret, and he is not a reputable source because of his conflict of interest in this matter as well as his dispicable character. Again, whether the story in our tradition is right or wrong, and I believe it is right, Simon the Stylite is not a saint despite his heretical convictions, for we do not believe he at any point of his life was a heretic. He is saint because we believe, historically, he never adhered to such heresy.

John Climacus is neither a saint nor is he recongized as a saint or a saint to be in our church, and that should seal the matter for him. A man who wrote some good things, like C.S. Lewis, nothing more and nothing less.

As such, and because the question regarding Simon the Stylite and Isaac the Syrian is clarified, as well as the status of john Climacus, even the weak defense to promote salvation outside the Church based on wrong applications did not bring fruits. Nobosy yet has dealt with the testimony of the great Fathers that i brought forth.

I will deal with rest of your intelligent post later. Till then, be well brother.

« Last Edit: February 16, 2007, 04:40:46 PM by Stavro »

Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)

How much credibility such story of the man gains or how much recognition it commands is not our dispute here, we can discuss it at some other time for the sake of historical verification and validation.

I think youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re missing the point if you think that objective historical truth is not relevant to this discussion. It doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t matter what factors the Church expressly considered or what factors She apparently did not consider in her canonisation of a particular Saint. The relevant facts are as follows:

1) Canonisation of a particular figure is a most serious issue that cannot be regarded as any less than Spirit-inspired by virtue of the fact that it quite seriously affects Orthodox praxisÃ¢â‚¬â€we harbour and venerate the SaintÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s relics and icons, we chant doxologies and praises to them, we seek and plead for their intercessions, we read their Synaxarium accounts before the Gospel reading during the Divine Liturgy etc.

2) If, as per objective historical truth, the figure in question was indeedÃ¢â‚¬â€in actual historical factÃ¢â‚¬â€outside the canonical boundaries of the Church, it thus follows that the Holy Spirit directed the Church to recognise a particular person as a Saint in spite of their technical position in relation to the canonical boundaries of the Church. Whether the Church consciously recognised or believed that it was canonising one who existed outside of her Canonical boundaries as per what may be inferred from the various historical traditions, the fact remains that She was inspired by a higher authority to do soÃ¢â‚¬â€the Holy Spirit. This higher authority, unlike the human members that constitute the body of the Church, is not capable of missing objective historical truth.

The historical veracity of the historical traditions you allude to, and the inferences that can reliably be drawn from them, are thus of central and crucial importance to the very nature of our discussion.

Often historical traditions like this vary, even from local Church to local Church within the very same Communion, so we must not think by virtue of some false reductionist conception of Ã¢â‚¬Å“Church TraditionÃ¢â‚¬Â that we are challenging or questioning the authority of the Holy Spirit by seeking to endeavour whether these historical traditions you allude to are in fact reliable and valid or not.

I suggest therefore that we consider this line of direction for our discussion, and so I ask you to please share your references for the sources of the works which account for the traditions in question; hopefully I will be able to gain access to them. If I canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t, I will have to ask you to present your accounts in more specific detail, with specific references to dates, places, and names. I think it will furthermore be prudent of us to investigate the historical traditions of these Syrian Saints by other OO Churches, particularly the Syrian Orthodox Church, to see if there is even a consistent historical witness within the Church to begin with.

Quote

John Climacus is neither a saint nor is he recongized as a saint or a saint to be in our church, and that should seal the matter for him. A man who wrote some good things, like C.S. Lewis, nothing more and nothing less.

The consensus of our ChurchÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s treatment of John Cliamcus testifies to his Sainthood. In every instance that has been observed where John Climacus has been appealed to or mentioned, it has always been the case that he has been appealed to or mentioned as more than just Ã¢â‚¬Å“a good manÃ¢â‚¬Â.

His Holiness Pope Shenouda III refers to him as a Saint, and I have never seen His Holiness quote anyone as an authority upon the mere basis that that person is a Ã¢â‚¬Å“good manÃ¢â‚¬Â. Fr. Tadros Malaty also quotes John Climacus as a Saint, as does H.G. Bishop Mettaous. These are some towering authorities and theologians of our Church; I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t mean any sarcasm or mockery when I say that I would be very interested to witness a dialogue/debate between you and these three prominent hierarchs/theologians of our Church as to whether it is appropriate or not to regard John Climacus a Saint.

More significantly, the Armenian monastic community has preserved his writings in classical Armenian for over a millennium as Salpy points out. Monastic communities of old only ever preserved and maintained the writings of Saints and Fathers of the ChurchÃ¢â‚¬â€those whose works were of intrinsic value and significance to Orthodox spirituality and doctrine. Conversely, such communities went out of their way to destroy the works of heretics. Can you explain why an Orthodox monastic community would go through the strenuous effort of preserving the works of an heretic, in order to integrate their spiritual principles to the Life of the Church, even if the principles in question were not themselves heretical? There is no evidence to suggest that monastic communities ever went out of their way to preserve and maintain copies of anotherÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s writings (which at the time would have been a very tedious and difficult thing to do in the absence of the technology we have todayÃ¢â‚¬â€photocopiers, printers etc.) upon the basis that that person was merely a Ã¢â‚¬Å“good manÃ¢â‚¬Â¦nothing moreÃ¢â‚¬Â.

Quote

Nobosy yet has dealt with the testimony of the great Fathers that i brought forth.

But I did my friend. No one here is disputing their testimony, only your interpretation of the implications of their testimony. I offered you a quote from one of the proponents of the patristic maxim you appealed to--St. Augustine of Hippo, which qualifies the patristic maxim, placing it into context accordingly. If St. Augustine himself did not intend the maxim in the absolute sense you implied he did, then why would it follow that any of the other Fathers did either? I also appealed to H.G. Bishop Youssef, who is no more or less a Father of the Church, who affirmed the particular interpretation of the patristic maxim that I am arguing for.

Quote

Till then, be well brother.

May you be well also.

It might be a good idea to postpone this discussion till after the Great Lent, if you don't mind. If you would like to put a last response in, that would be fine, but I think it's preferable that we concentrate on more important things for now (as this is the kind of discussion that I sense will require lots of time and research).

Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

Having not read much of this particular forum (mostly because it's almost midnight here) I can only speak from what I have studied in other places.

It would seem to me that the solution is rather obvious. If Dioscorus of Alexandria and Leo of Rome are both saints then the whole Church ought to recognise both of them.

In regards to historical disputes between saints may I please bring up the issue regarding the (re)baptism of heretics between St. Stephen of Rome and St. Cyprian of Carthage. The disagreement on this issue still exists til this day and yet the difference is not an issue.

Based on this, the "controversial saints" (if I might call them this) could be accepted by both in this way: Both sides agree that these saints were zealous to keep the Truth unchanged despite receiving different ways of explaining the union of the Devine and human natures of Christ.

It is already agreed that the issue was one of words and that both express the same faith. So if both express the same faith then so did the saints. Those who may have done harm to the other Christians were either zealous for Truth (as they understood it) or zealous of unity (which is commendable).

If saints of the past have misunderstood one another then those of today who now understand one another should accept that despite misunderstandings of the past these saints are still saints.

Who can deny St. Tekla Haimanot for example? Or who would deny St. Nicholas?

Throughout history there have also been saints who understood the position of the other Christians and so "converted" (although they really just changed the wording of how they thought their faith was best expressed). Surely the Church can understand this.

P.S. Please forgive any spelling or historical errors made although let me know so I can correct them in future. Thank you.

Logged

...because I was not with you when the Lord came aforetime....because I am blind and yet I see.

I should clarify, I'm not saying that all saints should be accepted by all as I realise that some are local saints and this is true even within varying OO and EO Churches. Rather, I am saying that the controversial ones could be recognised using the method I suggested above. For example, St. Samuel the Monk of Egypt cursed the Tome of Leo "and anyone else who would change the Orthodox faith of our fathers" (if I recall correctly). As a result, his eye was whipped out by soldiers. The EOs could recognise him by simply admitting that he held fast to that Orthodox Faith which he had received not realising that St. Leo of Rome merely expressed it in a different way.

I also find it notable that from what I have read in writings from the early Church, both formulas seem to be used by saints before the Council of Chalcedon. In particular, I have noticed that St. Ephraim Syrus refers to two natures.

Logged

...because I was not with you when the Lord came aforetime....because I am blind and yet I see.

Yes, generally speaking, but allow me to quote St. Augustine, a proponent of the "no salvation outside the Church" axiom to whom you have appealed: "Many of those who on earth considered themselves to be alien to the Church will find that on the day of Judgment that they are her citizen; and many of those who thought themselves to be members of the Church will, alas, be found to be alien to her" [quoted by H.G. Hilarion Alfeyev in The Mystery of Faith. An Introduction to the Teaching and Spirituality of the Orthodox Church (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 2002), p. 267]

I have personally grappled with HG Kallistos Ware's quote "We don't know where the Church isn't." The quote by St. Augustine is an interesting one. I was wondering if you know where in St. Augustine's writings is this written?

Thank you.

Mina

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

It sounds like something from his Sermons, but I am not sure which one and my knowledge of latin is lacking.

Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS